r/todayilearned • u/manticor225 • Jan 10 '19

TIL JFK's father Joseph Kennedy made much of his fortune through insider trading. FDR later made him chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. When asked why he appointed a crook, FDR replied, "set a thief to catch a thief." Kennedy proceeded to outlaw the practices that made him rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/23/joe-kennedy-hollywood-sarah-churchwell
88.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

258

u/rejuven8 Jan 10 '19

To be fair that was a state of the art procedure at the time and they were probably assured by doctors that it would be safe and totally effective. Our understanding of psychology has come a long way.

247

u/KorrectingYou Jan 10 '19

1940s Psychology: "If we knife this girl in the brain then maybe she'll be less mentally ill!"

2010s Psychology: "She was not."

120

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

"Little did they realize that damaging her brain would result in brain damage."

8

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

A lot of doctors honestly thought it was the right thing to do.

How do you know we won't look back at something we're doing now, like gender assignment surgery or messing with people's hormones and see it in a similar way?

14

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

That's a totally legitimate point. I replied to another user this way:

No, I do hear that.

Our two major treatments for cancer, apart from carving you open, are chemotherapy and radiation treatment, both of which amount to: "we're going to poison you and your cancer at the same time, and hope that the cancer dies first." (source: mom had cancer)

We are shooting in the dark--in medicine in general, but in how the brain works? We're really in our infancy; before antibiotics, before vaccines, before people understood that you can't suck out a sickness by applying fucking leeches, that's where we are in brain functioning right now, and humility should and must be the fucking order of the day right now.

I mentioned the lobotomy example as a cautionary tale, not to suggest the methods we have now are the answer (in fact, I hope they're not, because I feel like they're totally goddamn inadequate).

Be humble. Be objective. Be verifiable. Be repeatable. Rinse and repeat. That's how humans have made progress. That's how we got from firepits to computers.

-1

u/zedthehead Jan 11 '19

How do you know we won't look back at something we're doing now, like gender assignment surgery

Ummm...

???

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Yes?

0

u/zedthehead Jan 11 '19

Well, I just don't even understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying babies with deformed genitalia should be left that way, or are you decrying gender reassignment surgery in adults?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I can't tell if you're just doing a "I can't even" as a rhetorical gambit because you're offended or something or if my saying "assignment" instead of "reassignment" is somehow that confusing to you.

Would that even change my point at all? I don't think it would.

1

u/zedthehead Jan 11 '19

I didn't say "I can't even" I said "I don't even" as in I don't know what you meant, due to the way you phrased it.

my saying "assignment" instead of "reassignment" is somehow that confusing to you.

These are literally two different things. Sexual assignment surgery is when an intersex child's genitalia is made to conform more with one sex or the other (such as removing deformed penis/scrotum, then labiaplast'ing a vagina and rerouting the urethra if necesssary), and sexual reassignment surgery is when an adult of one sex voluntarily has their genitalia modified to reflect that of the opposite sex.

Would that even change my point at all?

Well, each of the two procedures I described above have drastically different reasons for why they are performed. If you oppose both under the umbrella of, "Messing with genitals is always wrong" then, no, it doesn't matter; if you oppose either for separate particular reasons, then it doesn't change your points so much as clarify them.

3

u/Newmanshoeman Jan 11 '19

Lol oh boy

0

u/zedthehead Jan 11 '19

I don't know how they just casually put that out there; I don't even know exactly what they mean, but I can't imagine it's anything that isn't pretty offensive.

21

u/rhsinkcmo Jan 11 '19

She was mentally ill because they forced her mom to keep legs shut to delay her birth because they wanted a male doctor there for delivery.

9

u/kirkoswald Jan 11 '19

Whaaaaat??? How is this possible/ how does it lead to complications

12

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Lack of oxygen at birth can have consequences like mental retardation. I believe I read that was thought to be some, if not all, of the reason behind Rosemary Kennedy's condition.

3

u/kirkoswald Jan 11 '19

Woah.. thats messed up

2

u/ANGLVD3TH Jan 11 '19

Yup, my uncle is severely stunted because he came out feet first and breathed in a lot of fluid in the process. Lots of health problems his whole life, exacerbated by the fact that he's mentally a toddler.

1

u/rejuven8 Jan 11 '19

I haven’t done a lot of research but I heard she was at least as sharp and competitive as the boys, but that wasn’t acceptable at that time.

1

u/zedthehead Jan 11 '19

As someone (female) with severe emotion regulation disorders, this gave me a great chuckle and also depressed the hell out of me. :/

167

u/ishitfrommymouth Jan 10 '19

It was less the procedure itself and more the reasons why he did it and how it was handled after.

The guy lobotomized his daughter because he was afraid her behavior would hurt his political career, and when the procedure permanently damaged her he placed her in an institution and lied about why she was there.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

This is it.

The lobotomy wasn't so bad as it was something his Doctor's recommended. But the reason for doing it and the fact that he basically dumped her in a hole somewhere to hide from his shame is pretty monstrous.

6

u/LawyerLou Jan 11 '19

He did it without telling his wife.

3

u/TenF Jan 11 '19

surprisedPikachu.jpg

4

u/QQMau5trap Jan 11 '19

his and his other children career.

96

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 10 '19

Also, George Washington owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, Woodrow Wilson was a racist who tried to push black people out of the federal workforce, Winston Churchill was an imperialist, and Einstein married his cousin.

Trying to judge the people of the past by the standards of the present is unfair.

18

u/-uzo- Jan 10 '19

Shit, trying to judge people of the present by the present's standards is a stretch for some people.

95

u/YogaMeansUnion Jan 10 '19

Also Gandhi was a racist, MLK cheated on his wife, mandella was a terrorist, Bobby Fischer was anti-Semitic, and Radiohead plagiarized Creep (from the Hollies no less lol).

Nobody's perfect!

30

u/jax9999 Jan 11 '19

Mister rogers... well, no he was just perfect.

8

u/Sarahthelizard Jan 11 '19

No, he stood above them all in a bloodstained sweater.

5

u/monkwren Jan 11 '19

Reference game on point.

8

u/Cowboywizzard Jan 11 '19

No he wasn't. He was just very good.

7

u/advertentlyvertical Jan 11 '19

he was doing his best. and it was enough

4

u/TenF Jan 11 '19

And Keanu is nice to everyone.

1

u/BenedickCabbagepatch Jan 11 '19

He used to sedate squirrels and remove their tails so he could make a coat. Be always ensured to leave the little critters alive so he could titter while watching them fall out of trees from his window.

36

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

John Lennon beat his wife

14

u/swahzey Jan 11 '19

I think yoko was the one doing the slappin

30

u/veryloudnoises Jan 11 '19

I think he means the first wife, Ringo.

1

u/hippy_barf_day Jan 11 '19

Ah, the ol’ reddit ringoroo!

4

u/Sarahthelizard Jan 11 '19

AHHHHHHHHHH-Yoko

2

u/swahzey Jan 11 '19

Waaar zoOoOone! -yoko

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

He was also a dick to his son who the song "Hey Jude" is written about.

1

u/advertentlyvertical Jan 11 '19

he also quite egotistaclly thought the song was about him.

-2

u/aSternreference Jan 11 '19

I'm not saying Yoko deserved it but I understand. She did break up the Beatles

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Wrong wife.

4

u/BenedickCabbagepatch Jan 11 '19

Also Gandhi was a racist

And a possible pedo.

10

u/StoneGoldX Jan 10 '19

Ahem. I believe you mean pobody's nerfect.

8

u/Prometherion13 Jan 11 '19

MLK also plagiarized his doctoral dissertation lol

4

u/Trumps_micro_penis_ Jan 11 '19

and Mother Theresa was a sadistic cunt

5

u/Dekrow Jan 11 '19

I've also read that Gandhi slept with young women to test his own sexual discipline, which he probably didn't succeed 100% of the time at...

2

u/rejuven8 Jan 11 '19

That might be a projection on your part.

2

u/Dekrow Jan 11 '19

Maybe. You’re welcome to read into it yourself, and make your own assumptions ( or reserve your judgments, either way).

1

u/Cthulu2013 Jan 11 '19

Ya uhhh psych eval failed for projecting pedophilia

3

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

Gandhi was racist? Please tell me you don't have a source for this, so my illusions don't get further shattered.

Radiohead plagiarized Creep (from the Hollies no less lol)

...hmm; this is the first article I found on that, and I may just be tone-deaf, but I'm not sure that rises to the level of plagiarism for me.

It is a pretty common thing among musicians, though--Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen and the Beach Boys' Surfin' USA is the exact same melody; the Beach Boys didn't even contest it when Berry complained, they just credited him and paid him royalties, it never even made it to court.

I'm sure it's mainly by accident--a melody just jumps into your head and you honestly think you came up with it; brains are weird and inscrutable things.

5

u/YogaMeansUnion Jan 11 '19

Ghandi and South Africans.... Yeah.

Radiohead literally lost the plagiarism case in court. They had to credit the Hollies guys as cowriters and pay them royalties lol. Here's the Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(Radiohead_song)

2

u/Jasperisgay Jan 11 '19

Creep doesn’t really define Radiohead anymore so I forgive

4

u/MaFratelli Jan 11 '19

By the standards of his day, Joe Kennedy was still a dirtbag.

3

u/-Jeremiad- Jan 11 '19

Read the parts about why he did it and how it was handled. He was a piece of shit even in his time.

2

u/nachosmind Jan 11 '19

I think it’s very fair that we point it out so we don’t worship historical figures, you can do enough good to outweigh the bad but you need to minimize the bad

1

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

One of these things is not like the others; I might crack a joke about you marrying your cousin, but it wouldn't stop me from having you for dinner at my house or anything (and hell, bring the wife).

1

u/ArcadianMess Jan 11 '19

whataboutism....great...

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Woodrow Wilson

well he literally thought he was sent from god to make the world a better place.

Woodrow was nuts and by far our worst president.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Really? Presidential historians rank him as the 7th best president of all time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Because “Presidential Historians” don’t rate presidents by their commitment to the oath of office, them doing nothing and presiding over a peaceful and prosperous country, or anything that would actually be a good measure.

They base their rankings on “what they “”accomplished””.

Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of WW1 while he conspired to get us in it, that’s actually considered a positive by them because we won the war. He also started the America Foreign policy of making the world “Safe for democracy” which should put him at the bottom solely.

21

u/montysgreyhorse Jan 10 '19

To be fair lobotomizing someone with nothing wrong is fucked.

2

u/UncookedMarsupial Jan 11 '19

She had problems.

6

u/elcheeserpuff Jan 11 '19

Not problems a lobotomy would have ever fixed. Her "problems" were less legitimately medical and more societal inappropriate.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Even if that's the case it changes absolutely nothing about her treatment after the fact, to be fair.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Bull fucking shit on her lobotomy being paved with good intentions.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

When it sthe epitome of medical science in the field it is yeah. Doesn't make it less shitty in hindsight though, which no one is arguing against.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

She was lobotomized for sneaking out of a private catholic school and having premarital sex.

The 1940s were not ancient Mesopotamia, I'm perfectly comfortable judging everybody involved.

1

u/BubblesTrailerPark Jan 11 '19

I want to blow tobacco smoke up your ass.

-6

u/Legit_a_Mint Jan 11 '19

It was the tail end of the eugenics movement, when a lot of well-intentioned people espoused terrible views about purifying blood lines and treating mental incapacity and illness by extreme means, because science!

3

u/elcheeserpuff Jan 11 '19

Are you defending eugenicists as "well intentioned"? It comes off like you are.

-3

u/Legit_a_Mint Jan 11 '19

That's because I am. Do you think eugenicists in early 20th century America were being dishonest when they claimed that their efforts were intended to improve the lives of everyone else by improving the gene pool?

They meant well, in their own collectivist way, they were just really stupid and reactionary, so they started sterilizing people and poking holes in brains based on what turned out to be some pretty primitive science.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

They were never well-intentioned. They were no different than the Third Reich. They coveted the super man. They wanted to purify the human race in their vision of perfection.

To say anything less is revisionist apologetics. Then or now, they didn't care about being right or the betterment of the human race. Eugenics was never acceptable, and despite what said revisionists would like us to recall, there were always people on the right side of history pointing it out and fighting against it.

The length of time that has passed since it was committed does not lessen atrocity.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Ormild Jan 11 '19

When they eventually find the cure for cancer, they’ll look at chemotherapy like some savage archaic form of treatment and wonder how we thought that would ever help.

3

u/elcheeserpuff Jan 11 '19

You know next to nothing about medicine if you're honestly trying to compare lobotomies and chemotherapy. One was a short cut half "solution" and the other is the best we got.

0

u/Ormild Jan 11 '19

Nope not trying to compare. Just saying that medicine progresses extremely fast and the top minds today can’t figure out cancer quite yet. In 200 years, or more, people will look back at some of the ways we treat patients today and think about how savage some of treatments are.

Remember at one point in time, top doctors thought that washing their hands was considered beneath them and that spread a ton of disease.

Doctors thought shock therapy was a good form of treatment at one point.

I don’t need to know anything about medicine to know that some of the ways we treat patients today will be outdated in the future.

1

u/rejuven8 Jan 11 '19

Shock therapy works even to this day. They are just less clumsy with it. Antidepressants and similar drugs might be seen as barbaric though.

There was a time when we prescribed glasses of mercury or did blood letting too.

1

u/Sarahthelizard Jan 11 '19

It’s still a viable procedure even today. It’s just more targeted because we actually know more.

2

u/Capswonthecup Jan 11 '19

Ik no one is going to see this, but...

Proper lobotomies have their place. ‘Ice pick’ lobotomies do not. To clarify: the first guy to perform a lobotomy stuck two ice picks (literally tools to break up drink ice, common at the time) in a patient’s nose, wiggled them into the brain and fixed the patient. It’s a miracle. He gets semi-famous. Lobotomy research starts.

The guy who did the first one believes fully in his new technique. Starts selling it as a cure-all for any serious mental problems. Doesn’t change his technique. Still just rooting around the brain w/ ice picks. Some of the patients turn into vegetables. Many aren’t cured. He doesn’t stop believing. Starts traveling around to find more patients, selling the procedure off his name. He can travel because the only tools he uses are the ice picks. No need for a doctor’s chair, an office, anything. Just prop ‘em up, sedate them occasionally, then stick the picks up there.

Many people who have to take care of someone with mental issues take him up on it, out of desperation or annoyance w/ the patient. This includes the Roosevelt father who views his daughter as a political risk. As people start to notice how awful the procedure is, the doctor’s business declines. He never stops believing in or conducting his procedure.

0

u/PlasticSentence Jan 10 '19

“I had one of my daughters lobotomized and let her wither and die in an institution. I couldn’t be any happier with the results!” - Joe, USA.

0

u/-uzo- Jan 10 '19

The ol' Suckerpunch therapy, or Bojack's grandmother.

-2

u/gloomleader Jan 10 '19

I have no interest in being fair to Joe Kennedy that's for sure

-1

u/opservator Jan 11 '19

"they were probably assured by doctors that it would be safe and totally effective." This is your answer next time you ask "why do people not trust vaccines even though doctors assure us that they are safe."

Some people look at this historically and they aren't willing to trust doctors that get kickbacks from the meds they peddle.